CAN: [Glenelg] Latitude | 42m | 12lvls | Residential

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in areas other than the CBD and North Adelaide. Includes Port Adelaide and Glenelg.
Message
Author
crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5417
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#46 Post by crawf » Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:52 am

lol sounds about right

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5534
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#47 Post by Will » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:50 am

Pistol78 wrote:So they are against development in Glenelg and it shows them standing on the balcony of their multi-storey development... HA that is irony.
One of them actually lives there!

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#48 Post by Cruise » Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:51 am

Will wrote:
Pistol78 wrote:So they are against development in Glenelg and it shows them standing on the balcony of their multi-storey development... HA that is irony.
One of them actually lives there!

If your serious maybe they are moreso trying to protect their views?

User avatar
AG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:44 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#49 Post by AG » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:07 pm

Cruise wrote:
If your serious maybe they are moreso trying to protect their views?
That doesn't make sense though if the image shown in the article is where one of them lives, because that would be from Colley Terrace and College Street is further south along the coast, certainly wouldn't block any view from any Colley Terrace apartment buildings.

teflon fox
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:23 am

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#50 Post by teflon fox » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:33 pm

AG wrote:
Cruise wrote:
If your serious maybe they are moreso trying to protect their views?
That doesn't make sense though if the image shown in the article is where one of them lives, because that would be from Colley Terrace and College Street is further south along the coast, certainly wouldn't block any view from any Colley Terrace apartment buildings.
I reckon he's more concerned about prorecting his investment. Some of the apartment complexes at the bay have not increased in value
to the same extent as other premium apartments elsewhere and he's probably worried that another boutique development in his area wont help.

Edgar
Legendary Member!
Posts: 990
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#51 Post by Edgar » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:44 pm

Well there is always 2 sides of a story hey? They are against the development but they are living in one.
Visit my website at http://www.edgarchieng.com for more photos of Adelaide and South Australia.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5534
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 665 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#52 Post by Will » Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:22 pm

AG wrote:
Cruise wrote:
If your serious maybe they are moreso trying to protect their views?
That doesn't make sense though if the image shown in the article is where one of them lives, because that would be from Colley Terrace and College Street is further south along the coast, certainly wouldn't block any view from any Colley Terrace apartment buildings.
AG, that photo is from 2002, when these same people were trying to stop Platinum and Liberty Towers.

User avatar
Pants
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Back Home
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#53 Post by Pants » Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:05 am

Pants wrote:As for Jack Messenger, I wonder if he's ever been to Surfer's... "you don't see it going up 20 storeys":

1. You're talking about a 12 storey development.
2. Q1's pretty hard to miss at 78 storeys and 323m you tool.
FLMAO! Just noticed you put this in the news story on the main page Howie! If I'd have known, I might have been more eloquent. :lol:

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#54 Post by Howie » Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:48 am

I thought that said it all really :) Very quotable!

User avatar
adam73837
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: The wilderness being sustained by nutrients in the air and powering my laptop with positive energy

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#55 Post by adam73837 » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:14 pm

Those two old blokes standing on the balcony in that photo must stop all their nonsense and face the facts. It is the 21st Century and Adelaide must progress. If they don't want to face the facts, they can take all their protesting troops to an uninhabited part of the South Australian coast and set up their own settlement there. They can sit there and criticise development as much as they want and the best part is that we won't have to hear about it. Oh and by the way the Parklands Preservation Comitee can join them and set up their own parkland around their settlement to keep all the people under 70 out of their town. Meanwhile, people will make proper decisions about how to handle things. In fact, this won't happen becuase they'll put up a fight and wave their walking sticks and frames around in protest.Which brings me to my next point, if these old farts have so much power and speak up so loudly, why don't we? We will be around to see how today's decisions will affect Adelaide, unlike the... others.
Come on guys, let's speak up and be heard by the public becuase all we're doing is discussing amongst ourselves and then arguing and then agreeing, however once we agree we leave the forum and move onto something else, whilst meanwhile, Adelaide has missed out on a brilliant opportunity. WE MUST BE HEARD!
I take back many of the things I said before 2010; particularly my anti-Rann rants. While I still maintain some of said opinions, I feel I could have been less arrogant. I also apologise to people I offended; while knowing I can't fully take much back. :)

Ben
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 6774
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 277 times
Been thanked: 1117 times

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#56 Post by Ben » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:52 am

This is sad. Look at the people in the picture and try to justify how they can control our future.

From the Messenger:
College St clash

Kym Morgan

07Apr08

Image
PROTEST GROUP: The Manson Towers resident's Association is opposed.

HOLDFAST Bay Council has sought specialist planning advice in its long-running battle to stop an historic Glenelg building being demolished for a 12-storey apartment complex.


The council, which remains opposed to developer Urban Construct's high-rise plan for the College St site, has a consultant's report that scrutinises the $110 million development.

In her report, consultant Wendy Bell identified several environmental issues with the 160-apartment complex's design that Urban Construct chief executive Todd Brown maintained would be the state's ``first truly green and sustainable residential development'' (see factfile, left). Mr Brown last week rejected Ms Bell's concerns about the building's design (see separate story).

Opposition among neighbours to the current proposal is fierce with 27 residents of nearby retirement complex Manson Towers, who stand to lose their car park if the development proceeds, registering their concerns with the Development Assessment Commission, which will determine approval.

Fifty-five representations were lodged by the March 28 deadline. Planning SA will not say how many are for and against the development. In January, the council forfeited its ``rights to assess'' - declaring a conflict of interest as it owns a nearby car park.

The council refused a previous application by Urban Construct for the same site, in 2004, saying it would change the use of the site and spoil College St's character. That decision was upheld on appeals to the Environment Resources & Development Court and the Supreme Court. Then Urban Construct wanted to demolish half the historic 1870s house, split between 3 and 5 College St, because it could not acquire number 5. Urban Construct has since bought the property, the home of former premier John Colton, from Dr Pamela Ryan. It would demolish the Victorian house.

Holdfast Bay Mayor Ken Rollond said the council would not drop its fight.

``This development is completely unneccesary for Glenelg and I hope we are able to prevent it.''

Manson Tower's Residents' Association president Kathleen Job, 86: said she believed more residents would have registered their opposition but were unaware of the deadline.

She supported Ms Bell's concern about environmental impacts of the design.

``The project claims to be environmentally friendly ... but it's not to this area.''

She added she was concerned the development would add to an already high ``pollution level''.

The DAC is yet to set a date to consider the proposal.

User avatar
Shuz
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Glandore

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#57 Post by Shuz » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:15 pm

Obviously if Urban Construct have lodged an application to build a structure, they would have done so that is in compliance, or that the majority of the structure is in compliance with the planning regulations of the Holdfast Council to the respective area, so it would make sense that under the development plan that they have, it should be able to proceed. Yet, it seems they are performing a backflip, and now believe that the proposed development is unsuitable to the area based on heritage concerns, which should I highlight, should have been mentioned as part of their development plan back when they assessed it. It seems only fair that Urban Construct deserves the right to go ahead with their ambitions, because they are the ones playing fairly, and the council are being stubborn useless idiots who are trying to stall development and economic oppurtunity for the area, based on a very flawed and invalid 'heritage' argument, which has limited substance and evidence necessary to sustain their notion.

And yes, it is frighteningly scary that an 86 year old woman presides over a community group, frought with mental retardation and extreme nimbyness, along with her associated counterparts are trying to do the same. Their time appears nearly due, and I should say they should be much more respective to the needs of a younger generation then to be selfish idiots and hold back oppurtunity for the Glenelg area.

User avatar
Pistol
Legendary Member!
Posts: 910
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#58 Post by Pistol » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:33 pm

Ben wrote:
Opposition among neighbours to the current proposal is fierce with 27 residents of nearby retirement complex Manson Towers, who stand to lose their car park if the development proceeds...
I don't know what is scarier, these residents controlling our future or the fact that some of them are still driving.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#59 Post by urban » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:47 pm

You make some fairly ignorant assumptions and use some twisted logic there Shuz. Your blind faith in large developers is heavily misplaced. They see Development Plans as being for other people. They are generally convinced that if they use enough lawyers and planners they can get any project through the courts. A number have said to me that a project hasn't started until it has been refused by council and that if you get Council Approval on your first try then you didn't push the boundaries enough.
Shuz wrote:Obviously if Urban Construct have lodged an application to build a structure, they would have done so that is in compliance, or that the majority of the structure is in compliance with the planning regulations of the Holdfast Council to the respective area, so it would make sense that under the development plan that they have, it should be able to proceed.
Their previous proposal was rejected by Council. That decision was supported by the Environment Resources & Development Court and the Supreme Court. This suggests that their previous proposal was at serious variance with the development plan and they were trying to ram their project through planning with the use of highly paid lawyers. I am sceptical that their current proposal would comply either.

The Council has acted ethically by declaring their conflict of interest and forfeiting its right to assess.

User avatar
omada
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Eden Hills
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Proposal: Twin Towers (2x17lvl) and Latitude (10lvl)

#60 Post by omada » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:55 pm

don't worry that white haired brigade will all pass away or get some aggressive form of dementia soon, then perhaps we can move into the real world and achieve the ultimate goal of consolidated urban development...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests